The Sojourner as Israelite Citizen

The Christian Battle Over Immigration Continues

Immigration is ubiquitously in the news after Trump’s first two weeks in office saw him sign over ten executive orders directly or indirectly related to the immigration crisis. Christians will find anything to argue about, but immigration seems to take the contest to a different level. Perhaps because it has been a long-term and ever-increasing problem in the United States; perhaps because the biblical teaching and knowing how to apply it is not simple; perhaps because the matter is not abstract but involves the existential well-being of people we know—both citizens and illegal aliens.

To argue well biblically and to resolve our differences by exposing error and supporting truth, at least two things must be done on the matter of immigration. First, we must deal with the facts of scripture. This sounds simple, but it is not. Did nations have distinct borders in the ancient world? What was the nature of citizenship? Was there a category for “illegal immigrant”? Biblical scholars do not agree on these matters and continue to debate them furiously. The second thing we must do once we believe we have accurately interpreted the biblical evidence is to develop the right hermeneutic for application. Many biblical scholars spend 95% of their effort at exegesis and only 5% on application, erroneously assuming that application is simple and straightforward. The truth, however, is that we may compile impressive and complex biblical and theological accounts only to discover they do not apply to the matter at hand as we assumed they would, or perhaps not at all.

Below, we will only attempt the first of these tasks, and only for a single issue: to understand the meaning of “sojourner” in Old Testament literature (primarily Pentateuchal). We will not address the dozens of other issues in the Old and New Testaments that intersect with immigration. Nor will we attempt a full-scale application, but only hint at some possibilities. (Those who are interested in my hermeneutic for application can find that here.)

The “Sojourner” in Ancient Israel

The term “sojourner” is especially contentious because it is clear from scripture that God cares about the well-being of the sojourner and that he instructs his people to likewise minister to them. Unfortunately, certain Christian immigration organizations severely distort scripture in their eagerness to support their opinions and preferred policies. For example, the Evangelical Immigration Table’s “‘I Was a Stranger’ 40 Days of Scripture & Prayer” challenge carefully cherry-picks passages from scripture and purposely arranges them in order to covertly lead the reader to the desired conclusion—namely, that the immigrant has inherent dignity since they are created in God’s image (which is false), that God loves the immigrant and commands that we invite them in and care for them, that civil law must be equally applied to native-born and foreigner, and therefore that the U.S. must have a de facto open borders immigration ethos even if in the same breath the organization claims to be for security and the rule of law.

The proper approach is a systematic and biblical-theological understanding of what the Bible teaches, both within self-contained contexts and literary corpi, but also across both testaments. In the Old Testament, there are three word groupings that designate three different kinds of foreigners: the nokrî/ zār, the tôšāb, and most commonly, the gēr.

The first grouping is the nokrî/nēkār and zār. These are nearly synonymous terms that indicate a non-Israelite who is a foreigner. They are used in negative context to speak of “outsiders” (Ex. 30:33), of God’s “strange deeds” and “alien work” (Isa. 28:21), or of Israel’s inheritance being given over to “strangers [and] foreigners” (Lam. 5:2). Yet these terms can also be used in a neutral way, as when Ruth labels herself a “foreigner” in the presence of Boaz (Ruth 2:10), or in Solomon’s dedicatory prayers for the Temple (1 Kgs. 8:41, 43). The term also often designates human or spiritual enemies (Josh. 24:20; 1 Kgs. 11:1-8; Isa. 1:7; Obad. 11). Importantly, these foreigners were barred from kingship (Deut. 17:15) and could not take interest-free loans (Deut. 23:19-20). They were distinct from native Israelites and seem to have failed to assimilate to Israel.

A second, more elusive, word group is tôšāb, or literally “one who resides.” It can mean “foreign guest” or “hired worker” (Ex.12:45; Lev. 22:10; 25:6), as well as “resident dweller” (Lev. 25:40). When occurring in conjunction with gēr (“stranger, sojourner”) (Gen. 23:4; Lev. 25:23, 35, 47; Num. 35:15) the two words form a hendiadys and mean “resident alien” (although many translations will gloss “stranger and sojourner” instead). The tôšāb seems to have been a permanent resident alien who was economically dependent and also unassimilated to an extent. They, along with the nokrî, were prohibited from eating and celebrating the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43, 45).

The most common word to refer to the stranger in the Old Testament is gēr, which occurs 82 times in the nominal form and 81 times as a verbal cognate (gûr). In the Pentateuch gēr was used to describe the patriarchs who found themselves displaced and in socioeconomic need. Moses was called a gēr while he was in Midian, and the term is also applied to the Israelites as a whole while they were oppressed in Egypt and during the Babylonian exile (Ezra 1:2-4).

In the legal corpus, the gēr constituted a person who held a status between a native Israelite (‘ezrach) and a foreigner (nokrî). This person was probably a proselyte who had taken up permanent residency and citizenship within Israel. Due to this, the gēr most likely did not have kinship bonds or owned landed property for security and sustenance. Therefore, the law included the gēr in its legislation of provisions and care for the most needy and vulnerable of society. Many of the gēr were day laborers and were allowed to glean from the edges of fields along with the poor, widows, and orphans (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:19-22). They were also able to benefit from the three-year tithe collected by the Levites and distributed to the same needy demographic (Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13). They were to rest on the Sabbath along with everyone else (Ex. 20:10; 23:12; Deut. 5:14) and be paid regularly (Deut. 24:14-15).

God repeatedly commanded that the gēr be treated ethically as if he or she were a fellow Israelite. The driving motivation behind such injunctions was that Israel herself had once been oppressed sojourners in Egypt (Ex. 22:21; 23:9; Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 10:19). The Israelites were to love the gēr not only because they could sympathize with being in such a difficult and vulnerable position, but also because God declared that he himself loved them (Deut. 10:17-19).

Critically, however, the legal material set forth a rather thorough assimilation for the gēr. Generally, the gēr was subject to Israelite law as the same rules applied to both the native-born and the alien (Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:15-16). The alien was judged under the same legal code, and criminal justice was impartial (Deut. 1:15-17; 10:17-18). They were also allowed to flee to the sanctuary cities along with everyone else (Num. 35:11-15). Finally, alien sojourners were expected to take part in the religious life, ceremonies, sacrifices (Lev. 22:17-19) and feasts of Israel, including being present at the reading of the law (Deut. 31:10-13). This would have necessitated the gēr’s ability to speak Hebrew.

From this material we can conclude three things. First, the gēr were fully legal citizens of Israel, to be treated equally as native Israelites (Lev. 19:34). As such, they were not “illegal immigrants,” but were equivalent to today’s foreign-born naturalized immigrant. Second, the fact that there are so many passages exhorting Israel to treat the gēr justly meant that they could be identified as being ethnically distinct from native Israelites. It is true that a “mixed multitude” left Egypt (Ex. 12:38), both native Hebrews and others of various ethnic descent. Yet these many different peoples all received the Law together at Mt. Sinai, and they all wandered in the desert for forty years before entering the Promised Land as one people. In other words, between the Exodus and entering the land, one generation had passed, and the second was well established, meaning that assimilation and the integration of Israel as a single people was well underway. Even so, it was still possible to distinguish between native-born Israelites and non-Israelites who were lawful permanent residents (gēr). Legal stipulations regarding the gēr were meant to continue the process of assimilation, both in terms of law but also in terms of interpersonal friendship and religious identity as God’s chosen people.

Third, as mentioned above, the gēr were still disadvantaged: they were not descended from one of the twelve tribes, they may not have been allowed to intermarry, and God had not given to them a portion of the land as a permanent inheritance. These structural (and intentional) disadvantages were balanced out by the specific legal provisions that gave them equal access to Israel’s religious life, sacrificial system, and annual festivals, that treated them fairly, under a single civil and criminal code, and that made economic provision for them in harvesting the edges of fields and receiving the Levitical tithe. While labeling them as “second-class citizens” is probably anachronistic and somewhat pejorative, there were hierarchies of privilege and responsibility in Israel’s social classes and civil society. The gēr were toward the bottom, but this did not legitimize treating them unjustly. They were Israelites, too.

The Matter of Church and State

Even if we were able to perfectly know the legal status of foreigners, resident aliens, hired workers, and sojourners in ancient Israel, it is not obvious that we should transfer her polity to America in toto. Nor is this possible. Israel was unique, chosen by God for covenantal and redemptive purposes, and thus, whose civil, ceremonial, and religious laws were tailored toward those ends. Israel was also unique in her origin in the Exodus, her wilderness wanderings, and her deliverance into and conquest of Canaan. America had a different origin, and her immigration history and problems are entirely different. Application of Old Testament “principles” or “paradigms” must be done cautiously and with the whole redemptive-historical sweep of scripture in sight. This means ascertaining the status of the Church vis-à-vis Old Testament Israel, the teachings of Jesus and his relationship to the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament’s teachings on the role of the civil magistrate to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:1-7).

In closing, my exhortation to American Christians is to realize that God has established the Church and her ecclesiastical government as distinct from the State and her civil government. This is not to espouse the modern doctrine of ‘separation of church and state’ (which is false), but to simply realize that while the Church has been tasked by Christ with the ministry of Word and Sacrament—to minister to the lost and needy with the gospel of Jesus Christ and to build up the local church on earth—the civil power has been primarily tasked by Christ with protecting her citizens, enforcing the rule of law, and enacting civil and criminal justice. This requires prosecuting those who have broken the law and entered the country illegally. The criminal acts of illegal aliens do not prohibit the Church from ministering to them, only from secretly harboring them or aiding them in escaping detention and deportation. Nothing from the Old Testament’s teaching about sojourners invalidates these conclusions.


Image Credit: Unsplash

Print article

Share This

Ben R. Crenshaw

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. You can follow him on Twitter at @benrcrenshaw.

2 thoughts on “The Sojourner as Israelite Citizen

  1. What Crenshaw seems to forget is that Christians are exiles in this world. And thus how attached we should be to a given nation makes us more analogous to the Hebrews who were wandering after the Exodus and before entering the Promised Land. The Promised Land was to provide a Sabbath, a rest, for God’s people from their enemies. And so what implications Crenshaw is carrying over from his word study may not be applicable in New Testament times.

    But there is a tie we have with immigrants and others who are not fellow citizens of one’s own nation. That is that all of us are made in God’s image. That tie should trump the ties we have with those who are fellow citizens instead of letting citizenship be a tie-breaker.

    Something else Crenshaw forgets. It is that many who are emigrating here are trying to escape the violence and poverty caused by past our nation’s policies. Doesn’t the US have obligations to such immigrants?

    Crenshaw is right in saying application is very difficult to figure out. But Jesus’s teachings on how if we love only those who love us or who are like us, we are not exhibiting the kind of love that God both expects us to show toward others or has shown toward us. We should also remember what James said in the 2nd chapter of his epistle when it comes to judging people:

    13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

    Though James was not dealing with the same subject as immigration, the concept of us being merciless is never smiled on in the New Testament. We should never try to whitewash the falseness of a love that only extends to those we love or to those who are like us.

    Our nation has a human obligation to immigrants for multiple reasons. The Church has an obligation to tell the State when it is practicing injustice against people.

  2. I’m glad an article on American Reformer acknowledges that the simple existence of laws (and larger covenants and promises) pertaining to the ancient nation of Israel is neither evidence nor justification that these laws (et. all) can or even should be applied to/expected of modern nations (including our beloved USA). Hopefully a message to be shared amongst other contributes on this site.

    That being said, if the following is true (with one small addition to account for those who enter the country through legal work visas and remain beyond their expiration date)

    “ the civil power has been primarily tasked by Christ with protecting her citizens, enforcing the rule of law, and enacting civil and criminal justice. This requires prosecuting those who have broken the law and entered [or stayed in] the country illegally. The criminal acts of illegal aliens do not prohibit the Church from ministering to them, only from secretly harboring them or aiding them in escaping detention and deportation. ”

    and if the author feels no need to imbue further nuances or complexities than that which is included in this article, one can rightfully conclude that the Christian hiding Jews in Nazi Germany had the ethical obligation to report them to the gestapo…

    Hmmm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *